Controversial incinerator plans unveiled

Controversial plans for an incinerator in Beddington have been unveiled.

Waste company Viridor has revealed details of the facility on its landfill and waste management site in Beddington Lane, which will create energy from burning 275,000 tonnes of waste each year.

The £200m project, which will handle not only waste from Sutton, Croydon, Kingston, and Merton, but also large amounts of business waste.

By burning non-recyclable waste to create steam to power turbines, the incinerator is expected to produce about 30 megawatts of electricity and heat energy, estimated to be enough to power 30,000
homes.

It will be sold back to the national grid, while heat created could be used in homes in the vicinity The plans, are for a facility with access from Beddington Lane, which will cover a four hectare
site.

Currently, Viridor is proposing its facility will have an 100m chimney stack, from which emissions from burning the waste will be released after filtering.

The centre will also feature a visitor and education centre.

Viridor has said it expects the incinerator to increase traffic to the site by up to 10 per cent when the incinerator is first built.

Comments (2)

Clearly this project has the potential to be controversial but having seen the headline I was curious to find out in the article why it was in this case. I was left rather disappointed when it wasn't touched on at all in the article.

It seems good that there will be more park land and the reduction of landfill sites, alse the additional electricity is certainly important when we are trying to use less imported fossil fuels from, often unstable, countries. I'm curious as to whether objections would be over the, surprisingly small, 10% increase in traffic or the actual emissions from the incinerator itself (at least filtered and released at 100m up), are the emissions worse than the impact of the landfill?

Clearly this project has the potential to be controversial but having seen the headline I was curious to find out in the article why it was in this case. I was left rather disappointed when it wasn't touched on at all in the article.
It seems good that there will be more park land and the reduction of landfill sites, alse the additional electricity is certainly important when we are trying to use less imported fossil fuels from, often unstable, countries. I'm curious as to whether objections would be over the, surprisingly small, 10% increase in traffic or the actual emissions from the incinerator itself (at least filtered and released at 100m up), are the emissions worse than the impact of the landfill?WilliamD